| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Robert Stise
Newcomer
1 Posts |
 Posted - Mar 27 2009 : 5:10:50 PM
|
Below is a excerpt from my essay that got this comment: "This, I think, involves at least two, and maybe three, pretty serious misunderstandings. I doubt I can sort them all out in these notes."
Here's the excerpt: "Aristotle looks at the existence of the soul as a function of experience that cannot exist without the body, thus when the body die the soul dies as well. In simple terms Aristotle looks at a soul as a function of life, so every living thing has a soul, and therefore the function of the soul cannot include thinking reasoning and arguing."
Considering that I have used my understanding of Aristotle in creating my essay, I'm troubled by the fact that I seem to be so misguided. I was wondering if I could get some input on how I am wrong and what is right.
[Edited to enhance readability -TT] |
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1368 Posts |
Posted - Mar 29 2009 : 10:00:54 AM
|
Sorry, Robert. I guess I didn't make my meaning clear. What I think we need to do is get together to talk this over in person. The reason I said I doubted I'd be able to sort out the misunderstandings I see in this passage in the notes I wrote on it in my assessment is that we're talking about things I don't think I can make completely clear at all briefly. I'll try, since you ask, but I'm guessing that we're still going to need to talk.
Here are the misunderstandings I thought I could see in those two sentences: - Aristotle identifies the soul with the first actuality of a living thing, not with its second actuality, and since that's the case, he doesn't look at the soul -- or at the existence of the soul -- as the function (i.e., the work, the ergon) of anything.
- The soul is never alive, and since that's the case, it can't conceivably die. If by "the body" you mean the matter in the composite of matter and form, then the body can't conceivably die either. All that can die, on Aristotle's view, is what's alive, and the only thing in this picture of things that's alive is the living thing that's the composite of matter and form: the individual plant or animal: this particular pine tree, that particular woodpecker, this particular human being.
- Soul is something all living things share, and since that's the case, it makes as little sense to speak of an individual soul as it makes to speak of an individual power of sight (one of the parts of soul that all animals share). Given this, it's at the very least extremely misleading to say that "every living thing has a soul."
Since the three things you say here that appear to me to rest on misunderstandings are the premises in your argument for the conclusion that "the function of the soul cannot include thinking and arguing," this particular argument looks to be in pretty bad shape. In any case, I don't see how you can square the conclusion for which you're arguing in this little passage with the fact that Aristotle plainly thinks that the soul does include the power to think, to reason. I'd add "to argue," except that I don't see any difference between reasoning and arguing. See especially Book III of the De Anima, Chapters 3-8.
So there you go. If this is all readily intelligible, fine. If not, then once again: let's get together to talk this over in detail. I'll be in my office during my office hours on Monday. |
 |
|
|
Joseph Haag
Moderator
172 Posts |
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1368 Posts |
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Essay Help
Forum Locked
